Jehovah's witness dies after refusing blood transfusion during the main operation.

[Bible Speaks]

England Newspaper 
Jehovah's witness dies after refusing blood transfusion during the main operation.

A Jehovah's witness lost his life after refusing a blood transfusion during an important hip surgery due to his religious beliefs.

Barbara Mortimer, 69, was against the medical council and died sadly on 24 may 2017, shortly after a hip replacement.
A final hearing was held yesterday at the old courthouse in Hatfield (Wednesday, 18 October) before the coroner Geoffrey Sullivan.

The Court heard that in January of this year, Mrs. Mortimer visited her gp mark penwell with "severe pain in the left hip".

Dr. Penwell said, " she was struggling to walk with him, even with a cane.

"the only useful intervention was a hip replacement".

He admitted, however, that he was concerned about Mrs. Mortimer, from Portland road, Bishop's Stortford, who would reject any blood product because she was Jehovah's witness.

Mrs... Mortimer also suffered what was thought to have been a heart attack in 2006 and acute coronary syndrome after having chest pain in 2010.

For her hip, Mrs. Mortimer was referred to orthopedic surgeon sharma.

He said, " she came to see me at the clinic on Thursday, March 23

" she came in with a diagnosis of hip arthritis on one side.

"had an x-Ray showing that the joints were worn out". The risks associated with the procedure, including the displacement of the hip, heart attack and the most common infection, were discussed with Ms. Mortimer.

Mrs. Mortimer chose to ungerar the surgery, but she was taking aspirin at the time of thinning blood. There was also a risk that he would need a blood transfusion during the operation.

The steps included the administration of tranexamic acid, adrenaline-Soaked Swabs and an aesthetic of the vertebral column rather than general, since all of these help prevent and restrict blood loss.

Mr... Mr. Sharma said, " we need to make sure our surgery is such a way to prevent bleeding.

"it was safe to proceed as long as we took all necessary precautions".

The procedure continued with the haemoglobin levels of Ms. Mortimer within an acceptable range.

But during the operation after the joint was dislocated, the living part of the bone began to bleed.

The bleeding then became "exponentially massive", according to Mr. Sharma after the elimination of the hard cartilage.

The Adrenaline Swabs, an alternative method to stop the bleeding due to Mrs..'s belief. Mortimer, they were inserted to constrain the blood vessels as well as a plastic membrane.

Mr... Sharma said, " we continue with the procedure, it was the best way to stop the bleeding.

" I couldn't think why there would be so much sangria.

" was it aspirin? It would have had a significant effect on her or there was an anomaly in the pelvic bone?"

After the surgery, Mr... Mr. Sharma spoke to Mrs.'s family. Mortimer.

"recommended blood products were rejected", he said.
" we were fighting to keep her alive if we can't give her blood. The persistent refusal was risking his life ".

Mrs... Mortimer faced the decision to accept blood products or hope that the liquids administered to his postoperación will stimulate the production of cells after such large blood loss.

She died during the first hours of the morning at rivers hospital.

Sharma was challenged in court by lawyer Kate Smith, who asked whether more investigations should be done before hip replacement due to his age, religious beliefs, medical records and the fact that he was taking aspirin.

Mrs... Smith presented a brochure in the court about Jehovah's witnesses and surgery.

He said that "any medicine that could increase blood loss should be avoided", referring to aspirin that slimming the blood and makes the possibility of needing a blood transfusion more likely.

Mrs... Mortimer signed a rejection form indicating his religious convictions that "blood transfusions should not be administered under any circumstances".

Mr... Mr. Sharma said in "Retrospective" that there are things that would have been done differently, but at that time all security precautions had been taken.

The operation was not considered potentially fatal either.

He was also challenged if Mrs. Mortimer needed to be taking aspirin. The decision to take this course was made on the basis that she had suffered a heart attack, then found out that it was false.
Coroner Geoffrey Sullivan said, " I can't see a short conclusion.
" the right form in my mind is a narrative verdict covering the loss of blood [by the surgical procedure and decreased blood products.

"she was admitted to rivers hospital, had taken the advanced decision not to accept blood products and asked her to consider accepting blood products, but refused to do so".

http://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/jehovahs-witness-dies-after-refusing-654766

[Evacuated]

Some troubling aspects to this report:

• "Mrs Mortimer chose to ungergo surgery, but was taking aspirin at the time which thins the blood. "
• "It was safe to proceed providing we take all the necessary precautions."
• "I could not think why such a lot of bleeding would take place."
• "Was it the aspirin?
• "Mr Sharma said in "hindsight" there are things that would have been done differently but at that stage all the safety precautions had been made."
• "He was also challenged whether Mrs Mortimer needed to be on aspirin. The decision to take this course was made working on the basis that she had suffered a heart attack – later found to be untrue."

Simple and general medical advice from, (as an example) angiologist.com, regarding blood thinners and surgery includes: 

• "Aspirin thins the blood by affecting the platelets. Platelets are small cells that help blood to clot. The effect of aspirin on platelets can take up to a week to reverse."
• "Stop the blood thinners before surgery and start them after surgery has passed. This option can be used if the surgery is high risk for bleeding and the need for a blood thinner is not very strong."

As the report does not deal with these issues to any satisfactory level, it's conclusion (reflected in the header) is biased and misleading. The patient declined the use of whole blood transfusion as a medical procedure before the operation was attempted, and all parties entered into the process fully cognisant of that non-negotiable factor. In accepting this, the patient was entitled to the best possible medical attention which would include an appropriate risk assessment.

This statement: "in hindsight" there are things that would have been done differently", made in the coroner's court, raises questions that the article does not answer and that impact directly on the tragic outcome.

Given these factors, as presented in the article, it appears that the verdict counters a principle of modern handling of such medical issues, expressly that "The paternalistic assumption that medical priorities outweigh patients' expressed wishes is no longer tenable." British Journal of Haematology.

 

[Bible Speaks]

@Gone Fishing

Sadly, medicine is not an art and patients are just the next patient. Study and Doctors will differ on these opinions. Education is the tool, but many are negligent and trust Doctors. Our life is in their hands. Many Professional Doctors do not treat Jehovah’s Witnesses that way but many have received higher education and proved reliable and trustworthy. I always suggest to clients I have get 2-3 opinions. Thank you for your support.

 

[David Normand]

The article left me wondering about the aspirin. I have been on low dose aspirin for years. When I went in for an operation two years ago I was told specifically that the surgeon would not operate until I had been off aspirin for two weeks. Since this was a non emergency operation that point with the doctor was non-negotiable. Their doctor should have made it clear and specific that no operation if she was taking aspirin.